LOL You're a know nothing on an obscure message board and also a leftist twatwaffle...I'm not apt to take you serious
Interesting, so your technique is to declare the other guy a "know nothing" and bail out of the conversation. Thats a great scientific argument, lets go with that.
What would happen if attempted to publish a refutation on a paper and that was the body of your work ?
Do you think the review board would even remotely consider that a valid position ? I mean if you are all that familiar with getting work published, surely you'd present a better argument. ;--)
Maybe you can explain to us how the increase in CO2 won''t lead to warming.
I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you
So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?
Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?
Have you ever actually studied climate science ?
Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?
As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE"
Really ??????
And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ?
This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone.
Brilliant, simply brilliant